Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 02:20:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:05:07PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
There is mathematically no way to choose a set of vectors that are
simulatneously eigenvalues of both operators. That co
On Fri, Mar 06, 2015 at 02:20:21PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> Russell Standish wrote:
> >On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:05:07PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >>>There is mathematically no way to choose a set of vectors that are
> >>>simulatneously eigenvalues of both operators. That comes from the
>
Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:05:07PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
There is mathematically no way to choose a set of vectors that are
simulatneously eigenvalues of both operators. That comes from the
Hilbert space structure, which in turn is a consequence of invoking an
obser
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 07:55:42PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 05 Mar 2015, at 06:12, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> >On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:06:35PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >>
> >>My opinion has not much changed since the last critics. It is a very
> >>nice derivation, but too much
On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:05:07PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >
> >There is mathematically no way to choose a set of vectors that are
> >simulatneously eigenvalues of both operators. That comes from the
> >Hilbert space structure, which in turn is a consequence of invoking an
> >observer and Kol
On 6 March 2015 at 06:22, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 04 Mar 2015, at 21:36, LizR wrote:
>
> On 5 March 2015 at 04:37, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>>
>> So it is not the state of the halting problem which are physical, it is
>> the physical which needs to be redefined in term of a measure (or the log
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:55 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 05 Mar 2015, at 06:12, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:06:35PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> My opinion has not much changed since the last critics. It is a very
>>> nice derivation, but too much quick a
There is a important paper in today's journal Nature on error correction
that would be needed to make Quantum Computers practical. Although they
still can't protect individual Qubits they could protect the entanglement
of 3 or more particles (the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger state) and they
could u
On 3/5/2015 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:
My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties and intelligence
for reason and logic, and the s
On 3/5/2015 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
But that would entail: provable(false) -> false, which is equivalent with:
not-provable(false). But that is consistency, and is not provable. So in general, due
to the second theorem of incompleteness, we don't have in general that: provable(p) -> p.
On 05 Mar 2015, at 06:12, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Mar 04, 2015 at 06:06:35PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My opinion has not much changed since the last critics. It is a very
nice derivation, but too much quick at some step, assuming the
reals, derivative, effectivity, etc. It go in th
On 3/5/2015 7:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Mar 2015, at 21:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we are in a simulated world, we are in all simulated world, some normal, or some
"perverse bostromian" (made by our normal descendents who would like to fake our
r
On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 10:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Feb 2015, at 20:40, Samiya Illias wrote:
My faith encourages me to pursue the sciences, to use my faculties
and intelligence for reason and logic, and the study of the
sciences is not doubt.
Doubt
On 04 Mar 2015, at 23:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 10:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
The SWE contains observables (operators) such as position, energy
and momentum and so on. What bases do we choose for these
operators? The default, that no one ever questions (to the extent
that I doubt t
On 04 Mar 2015, at 22:53, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It seems that this kind of information theoretic question might
be one that mind-as-computation could address: Why is it we can
only think of the world in these limited, classical ways (if
indeed that's
On 04 Mar 2015, at 22:13, LizR wrote:
On 5 March 2015 at 09:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we are in a simulated world, we are in all simulated world, some
normal, or some "perverse bostromian" (made by our normal
descendents who would like to fake our rea
On 04 Mar 2015, at 21:36, LizR wrote:
On 5 March 2015 at 04:37, Bruno Marchal wrote:
So it is not the state of the halting problem which are physical, it
is the physical which needs to be redefined in term of a measure (or
the logic of the measure one, of that measure) on the halting
pr
On 04 Mar 2015, at 21:32, meekerdb wrote:
On 3/4/2015 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we are in a simulated world, we are in all simulated world, some
normal, or some "perverse bostromian" (made by our normal
descendents who would like to fake our reality). We can test
computationalism V
18 matches
Mail list logo
